Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK 2A /3, with a dose of WP:POINT thrown in. (non-admin closure) ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am proposing this for deletion to test Wikipedia deletion policy against the huge number of articles created in relations to shootings in the United States. Wikipedia doesn't need a repository of every documented school/shooting event, there is already a list for this List of school shootings in the United States. The number of victims involved in a shooting doesn't warrant Wikipedia creating a new article, in my opinion, a new article should be created only if new content or issues are introduced. The relevant policy to this discussion I think is Notability and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  07:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Per my comments elsewhere this AfD is intentional disruption and should be treated as such; if you want to change Wikipedia policy to exclude an entire class of articles because you personally don't find them interesting, start an RFC. &#8209; Iridescent 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Responding your comments 'elsewhere', I understand that you agitate the position that Wikipedia doesn't operate on precedence but apply policies to each nomination separately. This argument is logically inconsistent, if some fact is used to apply a policy one way, the same logic can be used to apply the policy to a similar set of facts. Otherwise, there would be no need for policies in the first place, if they are going to arbitrarily applied. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  09:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not "agitating", it's a straightforward statement of fact. If you want to go down the Wikilawyering route, a topic in automatically notable in Wikipedia terms provided it meets either WP:GNG or an SNG, and doesn't violate WP:NOT. Since this clearly meets WP:GNG the onus is on you to demonstrate that it demonstrates WP:NOT. When Notability (events) talks about crimes not being automatically notable, we mean that we don't include an article on someone who was convicted of drink-driving or allowing their dog to foul the sidewalk, even if it was reported in multiple sources; we're not talking about this kind of major incident. If you want to get our notability policies changed, head on over to WT:N and start an RFC; Wikipedia doesn't work on precedents and even if by some miracle this AfD does close as anything other than "speedy keep", it will have  on the notability or lack thereof of any other article. &#8209; Iridescent 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call a routine occurrence a 'major' incident, there is already a list of school shootings in the United States. The fact this shooting occurred warrants documentation from a historical perspective, which is achieved through the list. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  10:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging Other editors recently invovled in another shooting releated delation discussion., , , ,  -- Eng. M.Bandara  -Talk  11:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - As we dont have a page for every fallen soldier or every military deployment in war, just as we dont have articles for every murder or homicide; however, any major events which pass WP:GNG or WP:SNG which covered by WP:SIGCOV of independent reliable sources, would suggest the article merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.